logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.05.18 2017가합103888
양수금
Text

1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim shall be dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “B”) contracted for KRW 4,797,780,000 for the construction cost, which was ordered by D agency, on April 28, 2016, and provided a subcontract for construction work of reinforced concrete (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction”) among them on June 20, 2016 to G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “G”) for a period of KRW 880,000,000 for the construction cost (including value-added tax) and from June 25, 2016 to September 30, 2016.

B. G entered into a human resources supply contract with the Plaintiff and continued the instant construction work.

The Plaintiff supplied human resources equivalent to KRW 212,954,00 for three months from September 2016 to November 2016.

C. On November 15, 2016, G transferred to the Plaintiff the claim for construction cost equivalent to KRW 202,215,400 against G with respect to the unpaid human resources supply cost, and set up a statement of direct payment that may be directly paid by B. D.

As of February 1, 2017, B paid KRW 139,132,100 to G, but B paid KRW 55,00,000 directly to the Plaintiff on February 1, 2017 with the above direct payment agreement, etc.

E. B was decided on March 10, 2017 by Daejeon District Court 2017 Gohap5003, and the Defendant was appointed as a custodian on the same day.

As to the above bankruptcy court B, the Plaintiff reported that the principal amount of KRW 157,954,00, interest amount of KRW 2,155,098 has been paid.

In this regard, the defendant, who is the custodian, denied the full amount of the reported amount on the ground that G is the obligation to be paid.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, fact inquiry results against D institutions, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On November 2016, the instant construction project was interrupted due to weather conditions, design changes, failure to pay human resources supply, etc., and H in the site director B at the time was interrupted.

arrow